H. of R.]

Crimes in the District of Columbia.

[APRIL 8, 1830.

Mr. POWERS said it was the intention of the committee to place slaves on the same footing as free citizens in relation to criminal punishments.

Penalties had been imposed, two-thirds of which were Mr. WICKLIFFE next moved to insert the word free, paid to the informers; and the extent of this evil could in order to make these punishments only applicable to be somewhat inferred from the fact, that a single consta- free citizens, and not to slaves. ble was in the habit of receiving from two to three thousand dollars a year of gamblers, as informer, for his share of penalties, the balance of which was paid to the corporation. It was certainly important to the morals and wel- Mr. WICKLIFFE demanded what punishment it could fare of society, that this alarming practice should be sup-be to take a man from the bondage of his master, and place pressed. him in the penitentiary.

He should not [said Mr. P.] dwell on the subject of duelling. It had often been discussed by far abler men, and he could offer nothing new. All must be sensible of the magnitude of the evil, and concur in a desire to abolish a practice fraught with such calamities as this country had experienced from it.

He should trouble the committee with no further remarks at present, but was prepared to give such explanations to the various provisions of the bill, as might be called for.

Mr. WICKLIFFE proposed to strike out three of the offences mentioned in the bill. He referred to the words "cheating, gaming, and duelling." All crimes, he contended, should be punished according to their enormity, and no jury, he presumed, would be found to sentence a man to the penitentiary for the undefined charge of gaming, for instance. He would leave this subject where it now rested, in the care of the common law. He presumed the committee intended to suppress the evil of keeping public gaming tables, though, in the present shape of the provision, it extended to the corner of the whist table. Mr. SEMMES proposed to amend the section by inserting the words " keeping a public gaming table or house." This [he said] was the kind of gaming intended to be punished by the committee, and he hoped it would meet the views of all. As to duelling, [he said] it was evidently the wish of a large proportion of the citizens of the place to have something done for its suppression; and as they were legislating for a people who have no legislative council of their own, he thought it due to them to consult their wishes.

Mr. POWERS said, he had inadvertently answered for the whole committee on the subject of maintaining an equality in punishments, while, in reality, he only expressed his own sentiments. He was now convinced that others, and perhaps a majority of the committee, were opposed to him on that subject.

Mr. BURGES said, he did not know the provisions of the bill, but he could not see how a distinction could be made in punishing the crime of a slave or that of his master; and he was sure his master could not complain of the loss of his service, so long as his confinement was required for the public safety, for this was, in fact, the object of punishment. He agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky, that it was no great punishment to imprison a slave; but the public safety might require his confinement. If slaves were exempted from punishment, a man might, with impunity, aim a dagger at the throat of him whom he hated, by the hand of his slave.

Mr. BOULDIN said, there were circumstances, founded in necessity, which rendered a distinction essential, between the laws applicable to a free man and those intended for a slave. The incarceration of an individual, and making him a slave for a time, had some terrors for one who was free; but what possible effect could it have on one who was already a slave? What possible good could result from taking him for a time from one master, and giv ing him to another? He thought, also, that the punishment of the slave and the interest of the master should ever be inseparable. The master should rather be interested in the detection and punishment of the crimes of the slave, than in their concealment. He did not know the Mr. SPENCER, of New York, said he should readily size of the penitentiary, but, if the act passed in its present concur with the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. WICK-shape, they could not be too quick in setting about its enLIFFE] that the word duelling should be stricken out as largement, for it would certainly be filled. He did not too indefinite an expression, if it were not fully defined in know what the laws of Maryland and of Virginia were at the eleventh section. Gaming [he said] was also a crime the time of their adoption by the District; but he presumof various grades, and required provisions accordingly. ed they were nearly the same as they are now, and adaptCheating was entirely too indefinite a term, and should be ed to the government of slaves. stricken out, or receive a substitute. In relation to duelling, there was scarcely a State in the Union which did not severely punish the incipient steps towards the commission of this crime, such as bearing challenges, &c. He hoped this ten miles square would not be made an exception, but that here a still more salutary example would be set, for the guidance of other parts of the Union.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, said, if the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WICKLIFFE] would withdraw his amend ment for a moment, he would submit a proposition which he thought would meet his views.

Mr. WICKLIFFE said, no man could have more abhorrence for the crimes enumerated, than he had; but he knew the futility of enacting laws which would not, and could not, be executed. He would, however, withdraw his motion to strike out, to give the opportunity asked by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STORRS then proposed to amend the section by substituting the following words: "for obtaining money or any securities herefor, or any goods or chattels, under false pretences, or keeping a faro bank, or other common gaming table."

Mr. POWERS stated the provisions of the laws of Maryland on the subject.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, said, the infliction of pain or punishment upon the offending individual was not the object of criminal law. It was to provide for the public safety alone; and in this respect no difference could exist between black or white, bond or free. It would certainly be wrong to punish slaves with more rigor than others, as their opportunities to acquire knowledge, and their inducements to practise virtue, were less than those of the white man. It would also be wrong to punish them less, as it would look like an inducement to the commission of crime. He thought the House could make no distinction in its provisions for their punishment.

Mr. SEMMES said, as a slave holder, and a representative from a slave holding State, he was entirely opposed to the amendment, for the reasons offered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SPENCER.] It was a most mistaken idea that it could be no punishment to a slave to confine him in a penitentiary. He would ask the gentlemen to look around on the condition of slaves in this District, at this enlightened age. Had they not as much to lose by A suggestion was made by Mr. WHITTLESEY to strike their incarceration as the white man? Would they not be out the word "common," but Mr. STORRS feared this torn from their homes--the bosom of their families--and might destroy its object, and it was agreed to as first proposed by Mr. STORRS.

the enjoyment of their domestic comforts, by being condemned to prison? He contended that stripes were no

adequate punishment for crime, and did not conduce to the reformation of the culprit. He was a member of the Legislature of Maryland, when the laws of that State were enacted to ameliorate the condition of its slaves, and to modify its former laws in relation to them; and he would now announce to the House, that it was the intention of the chairman of the committee, [Mr. POWERS] if the amendment did not prevail, to extend the laws of Virginia and Maryland, on this subject, to the District.

Mr. BOULDIN said, the laws of Virginia, and he believed those of Maryland also, provided for the payment of the price of each slave who was executed. He still contended that whatever speculations might be made on this subject, it would be found, by sober practice, that the interest of the master must be consulted, in the punishment of the slave. If the amendment were adopted, it would leave the committee at liberty to introduce a new bill, containing a short and simple plan of punishment for slaves. Mr. POWERS said he must still decline acceding to the amendment.

[H. of R.

Mr. SEMMES said, if gentlemen wished for the amelioration of the condition of slaves, they would effect their object by voting for the proposition.

Mr. BARBOUR followed in explanation of the laws of Virginia on this subject. After some further debate, however, the proposition was withdrawn.

Mr. WICKLIFFE proposed an amendment to the clause relating to assaults, with intent to kill.

Mr. SUTHERLAND suggested that the word "murder" would be more correct than "kill," which was the usual term. It would, he thought, be better to insert in such cases two counts, one for assault and battery, with intent, &c., and the other for the intent to murder; the jury could then decide upon the quo animo of the case before them. He referred to a case which he had formerly conducted, in which, by this means, the criminal had been convicted.

Mr. TAYLOR said, that, in his opinion, it was better to retain the words used in the ancient judicial practice. To kill, as applied to this, was, in the legal acceptation of the term, to kill feloniously; and such was the construction put upon the phrase by the highest authorities.

Mr. WICKLIFFE, after a few remarks, withdrew his

Mr. DRAYTON feared, if this debate were continued, the object of the committee would be defeated. And, although he would not presume to lay down rules for the government of the committee, he suggested that the de-amendment. bate should be as circumscribed as possible. He believed Various other amendments were proposed and adopted. it essential that freemen and slaves should be governed by Mr. INGERSOLL moved to amend the bill, by adding different codes of laws; but he would be inclined to adopt to it a section providing to punish the crime of forcibly a rather less sanguinary one for the government of the lat-carrying away or seducing from the District, with intent to ter than the former, as they have not the same incitement sell, free negroes, by fine, not exceeding five thousand dolto the practice of virtue as their masters have. The codes lars, and imprisonment for not more than seven years. should, at all events, be distinct, and the danger of their The amendment was agreed to. conflicting avoided.

Mr. WICKLIFFE proposed a further amendment to the bill, for the punishment of persons breaking into a dwelling-house during the day time.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, stated, that he had never heard of such an offence as the one described. Breaking into a house by night, with intent to steal, is punished as burglary, because it disturbed the repose and hazarded the safety of the inmates. In the day time, however, there could be no offence of this nature committed, amounting in the eye of the law to burglary.

Mr. WICKLIFFE replied, he was reluctant to labor under an imputation of providing for the punishment of a crime which had never been heard of.

Mr. SPENCER, in explanation: I stated that it was a crime which I had never heard of.

Mr. BURGES said, he meant to make no improper allusions. He would not say that there were one class of individuals there, that knew more of the management of slaves than others, but he could not subscribe to some of the opinions advanced there. He could not believe that the condition of slaves was such, that being bound by links of steel, and laslied to a wheelbarrow during the day, and then turned into a solitary cell at night, had no terrors for him. He thought he was more a slave, who was deprived of the sight of the green earth, and the glorious sun, and the powers of the free exercise of his limbs, than he who was only held in common bondage. He would agree that these things were not quite so much a punishment to the slave as to the freeman; but he contended we had not the right, this side of the grave, so far to exercise the retribu- Mr. WICKLIFFE resumed. He should not have alluded tive powers of Almighty justice. If, in the exercise of the to the remark, but from the circumstance of its being made powers they possess, they infringed on personal liberty, or by so eminent and distinguished a jurist as the gentleman even life, it could only be so far as the public welfare call- from New York; [Mr. SPENCER] nevertheless, he must ed on them to act. He had been told of the failure of the still maintain that the breaking into a house in the day penitentiary system, but these remarks could only apply to time was, under certain circumstances, equivalent to the the manner in which it was formerly conducted, before the crime of burglary during the night. He would instance introduction of solitary confinement. When culprits were a case which would demonstrate this: suppose a man leave mingled in a mass, and suffered unrestrained intercourse his house during the day, in the pursuit of his usual avocawith each other, in every hue of crime, it was to be ex-tions, in the care of a female of his family, and that some pected that they would deteriorate; but such was not now one entered his house with a felonious intent, or attemptthe case. He said he would go any length to accommodate ed to commit a felony, would the person injured be congentlemen in what he deemed to be right; but, before his tent with a system of law which indicted the prisoner for a country and his God, he could not consent to form one mere assault and battery? It was for the protection of facode of justice for the government of white men, and an-milies from alarm and outrage, that he had moved the other for blacks. amendment in question. You must charge, [said Mr. W.] The question was then taken on the amendment to in-under the present law, the ruffian who breaks into a house sert the word "free," when there were, for the affirma- during the day, with the most atrocious intentions; he does tive 50, for the negative 54. This not being a quorum, not accomplish his full purposes with intent to steal only; the question was again taken, and it was carried: yeas, 58--for which offence the punishment is a small fine, and, perhaps, six months' imprisonment. My amendment will preMr. WASHINGTON then moved an amendment, mak-vent this very apportionment of punishments, and coning the laws of Viginia and Maryland, in relation to slaves, tribute, accordingly, to the safety of our fellow-citizens. binding in the District. With respect to the remark, that the proposition is novel, Mr. SPENCER, of New York, and several other mem-in as much as it provided for the punishment of an offence bers, wished to know what these laws were, before they never heard of, he would only say, that he [Mr. WICKvoted for them. LIFFE] had, in his own State, Kentucky, been charged with

nays, 54.

H. of R.]

Crimes in the District of Columbic.--The Army.

[APRIL 9, 10, 1830.

the prosecution of such offences, and had convicted the without discussion or reflection. He moved that the reoffenders. port and resolution be committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and that they be

Mr. SPENCER repeated, that he had said he had never heard of such offences. If the necessity of such a provi-printed. sion could be shown, he should certainly give his ready assent to it.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. STORRS, of New York, Mr. WICKLIFFE, Mr. SPENCER, of New York, and Mr.TAYLOR took part, the amendment was negatived.

Mr. MARTIN submitted an amendment to the fourth section of the bill, providing that no person concerned in a duel shall be subject to an indictment for having been engaged in it, on his own testimony, during any part of the proceeding in the case of such duel.

The amendment was adopted.

Some remarks were here made by Messrs. SPEIGHT and DESHA.

Mr. DRAYTON said, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he did not declare himself in favor of a reduction of the number of officers of the army. He did not deem it necessary to express an opinion on that subject. But he thought it altogether proper that the inquiry should be made. This was the whole object of the resolution.

Mr. TAYLOR said, he must still be allowed to consider this more than a mere resolution for inquiry. It directs the Secretary to submit a plan for the reduction of the army. He thought the first step should be, for the House to inquire whether such a reduction was proper to be made;

Upon motion of Mr. POWERS, the committee then took up the bill for the appointment of commissioners to pre-but this the resolution takes for granted. It was in vain to pare a code of laws for the District of Columbia.

Mr. WICKLIFFE moved to amend the bill, by inserting a clause, that one at least of the three of the commissioners proposed to be appointed for that purpose should not be a resident of the District of Columbia. The motion was negatived.

say, that, by the passage of this resolution, the House would take no part on the question of further reducing the army. It would imply an expression of opinion that this reduction was proper, and it would go abroad to the people of this nation in that light. On the reduction of the army from ten thousand to six thousand men, in 1821, Mr. T. said he

Mr. STERIGERE moved to strike out from the bill the was one of those who advocated the measure. For this, words "by and with the consent of the Senate." he and his friends, who voted with him, were stigmatized This motion was also negatived by the committee. as radicals, and as attempting to take away the right arm Several verbal amendments were proposed and agreed to. of the national defence. This was nine years ago, and he Mr. STORRS, of New York, moved to reduce the sum asked what they had done since? How many fortifications to be appropriated from ten thousand dollars to six thou-have been erected since, and how many men will it take to sand five hundred dollars; which, after some remarks from arm them properly to make them effective in the defence Mr. POWERS, was agreed to.

of the country? It is but a few days since the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] himself introduced a bill making appropriations for this very object. Is this a time, then, for this House, without debate and without investigation, to pass a vote that it is expedient to reduce the army? for this is the purport of the resolution. Mr. T. said it had been suggested to him to offer an amendment, calling on the Secretary of War merely for information on the subject; but he would not do even this. He believed that inquiry belonged exclusively to that House, and he did not think the mere opinion of the Secretary of

The House took up the bill for the punishment of crimes War could aid them in arriving at a conclusion on the subin the District of Columbia, with the amendments report-ject. ed by the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. POLK said, he thought the gentleman from New

Mr. A. SPENCER objected to the amendment which York [Mr. TAYLOR] mistook the object of the resolution, introduces the word "free" before "persons," and thus as it was evidently only intended by it to institute an inconfines the operation of the bill to free persons. He repel-quiry.

led the idea that confinement to hard labor in the peniten- Mr. TAYLOR asked that the resolution might again be tiary would be no punishment to a slave, and entered into read; which being done, a train of reasoning to show that the discrimination was improper and inexpedient.

As discussion seemed about to arise on this bill, Mr. WHITTLESEY proposed that the House, according to the rule, take up the private docket, and the SPEAKER accordingly proceeded to the orders of the day.

SATURDAY, APRIL 10, 1830.

THE ARMY.

Mr. POLK continued. He thought it a proper subject for inquiry, though he was not now prepared to express an opinion on the policy of continuing the present system of maintaining a skeleton of an army.

The SPEAKER pro tem. [the Hon. P. P. BARBOUR] remarked that the question was on the commitment of the resolution, and not on its merits.

Mr. POLK thought the delay incidental to a commitment to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, was wholly unnecessary.

The House procceded to consider the following resolu- Mr. CAMBRELENG said, he fully concurred with his tion, reported some days ago from the Military Committee: colleague, [Mr. TAYLOR] in the opinion expressed by him, "Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to that this was a proper subject for reference to the House, report to this House, at the commencement of the next and its discussion while on the state of the Union. It was session, such an organization of the army of the United well known that officers, in what had just now been term. States as will reduce the number of its officers, without in-ed our "skeleton of an army," supported at the public jury to the service."

A debate arose on this subject, which was terminated only by the expiration of the hour allotted for considering resolutions, of which the following is a sketch:

Mr. TAYLOR said, he was not himself, and he presumed the House was not, prepared to act upon this important subject, involving the question of a reduction of the army,

expense, for future emergency, were more numerous, in strict proportion, than the privates. But it was also known that most of the disasters which befell our country at the commencement of the late war with Great Britain, arose from the want which we so deeply felt of experienced officers. It was not the business of the Secretary of War to instruct that House upon the policy of reducing the off

APRIL 12, 1830.]

Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum.

[H. of R.

cers of the army to a minimum with the privates, or of commitment of the resolution, because the inquiry appear preserving the precious "skeleton" of an army which we ed to him to be altogether an improper one.

The reso

yet possessed--it was not a subject for him to decide, lution also seemed more than a simple inquiry. It indicatwhether our army of officers was to be fostered or aban-ed something like an opinion, on the part of the House, that doned; but he believed it was a proper subject for refer- some alteration might be made in the present organization ence to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the of the army, and he must entertain an opinion of that sort Union. himself, before he could vote for it. The various sugMr. DRAYTON said, if he took the same view of the gestions it contained were all proper subjects for the consubject that the honorable gentlemen from New York sideration of that House, and not for the Secretary of War. [Messrs. TAYLOR and CAMBRELENG] did, he would readily We do not call upon him to know whether it is necessary concur with them in the propriety of the proposed refer- or proper for us to diminish or increase our fortifications, ence. But he could not so view it; and he must still be- or whether we will abolish or continue the Military Acadelieve it a proper subject for reference to the Secretary of my, that nursery of officers. Mr. W. said he was a memWar. He was extremely anxious not to be misunderstood ber of that House at the close of the late war, when the in this matter. He had by no means inferred that he had calamities we had suffered for the want of a well organized arrived at a conclusion that the army or its number of off-army in its beginning, were fresh in their memories. Percers should be reduced, nor that they should be increased; haps their feelings at that time might have carried them though he was not sure that, on a proper investigation, he too far in providing for future emergencies; if so, he was should not express one of these opinions. The proposed willing to bear his due proportion of the blame. It seeminquiry was far from being unprecedented; and he would ed to be admitted that the number of privates was not too ask if resolutions were not almost daily laid upon the ta- great for the necessities of the service. It was only the ble, and agreed to, for inquiries to which the House was officers against whom the inquiry was directed. Experiopposed. The language of the resolution was certainly ence had demonstrated that it would be much easier to misconstrued. It called for such a plan as would not be procure men on the recurrence of a war, than it was to injurious to the public service; and, if such a plan were have them properly commanded. submitted, he asked if the House would not feel bound to adopt it. As the object of the resolution was a mere inquiry, he thought it should be sanctioned.

The SPEAKER again remarked that a debate upon the merits of the resolution was inadmissible.

Mr. WILDE said, he was sorry to infringe on any of the Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, said, as the object rules of order of the House, but he felt the necessity, and was merely that of inquiry, he would propose to amend he wished to impress it upon the minds of members, to rethe resolution by adding “if, in his opinion, such reduc-flect what would be their condition, if they proceeded to tion can be made" without injury, &c.

[A motion being pending to commit the resolution to a Committee of the Whole, this amendment was not in order.]] Mr. DESHA said, he rose to reply to the gentlemen from New York, [Messrs. TAYLOR and CAMBRELENG] who had adverted to the policy of the Government in the present organization of the army, as a resort in future emergencies. Experience had fully proved that the service of an officer in time of peace did not improve his capacities, or qualify him for the exigencies of war; on the contrary, such had ever been found the most inefficient.

Mr. VANCE expressed his opposition to any project for disturbing the present established organization of the army. The detached service on which this small corps was employed, required a greater proportion of officers than if they were kept in more compact order.

The SPEAKER again reminded gentlemen that the merits of a resolution was not a subject for debate, on a motion to commit it.

Mr. VANCE said, he believed its commitment would amount to its rejection, as it could not be reached this session in the regular succession of business.

pass a vote for another reduction of the army, for such, he considered, was the purport of the resolution proposed. Mr. W. was about to proceed, when the SPEAKER announced the expiration of the hour allotted to resolutions.

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1830.

KENTUCKY DEAF AND DUMB ASYLUM.

Mr. BAYLOR, from the committee appointed on the 28th of December last, to which was referred, on the 18th of February last, the petition of the trustees of Centre College, of Kentucky, who are also the trustees of the Kentucky Institution for the tuition of the Deaf and Dumb; reported a bill to amend an act entitled "An act for the benefit of the incorporated Kentucky Asylum for teaching the Deaf and Dumb;" and to extend the time for selling the land granted by said act.

sury, and made it the duty of the said corporation to sell the land within five years from the passage of the act; the same to be located in one of the territories, on land on which the Indian title had been extinguished.

Mr. KINCAID rose in explanation, and support of the bill. He observed that its object was simple and reasonable; being to extend the time which had been allowed to the Deaf and Dumb Asylum of Kentucky in the origiMr. DWIGHT said, he was equally opposed to the re-nal act to dispose of the land granted to it by Congress. solution, with other gentlemen who had addressed the The act had been passed on the 5th of April, 1826: it House. [Order.] The reason why he was in favor of its granted to the institution one township of land, to be locommitment to the Committee of the Whole on the state cated under the direction of the Secretary of the Treaof the Union, was to give an opportunity for discussing whether the Government would abandon fortifications for which they had appropriated ten millions of dollars. The defence of our sea coast alone, on which these fortifications are erected, requires in time of war forty thousand Difficulties of various kinds had occurred in complying men, and in time of peace twelve thousand; while, at this with the terms of the act, in consequence of which the moment, we have not five thousand men in service. He sale had been so far retarded, that, if the terms of the would ask, if it was supposed the Secretary of War original grant should be insisted upon, the trustees would could instruct the House that five thousand men were too be compelled to part with the residue of the land, (conmany for the service of twelve millions of inhabitants. sisting of about one-third part of the whole,) at a great The agitation of this question [he said] must tend to de-sacrifice. Under these circumstances, they had presented stroy the confidence in the Government, which it was de- their petition to Congress, praying that the time might be sirable should be possessed by men, who, he did not hes:- extended to five years longer. tate to say, were as talented, worthy, and brave, as those of any army of its size in the world.

Mr. WILDE said, he was in favor of the motion for the

The nature and causes of the difficulties which had retarded the sale were well explained in a letter written to him by R. C. Allen, Esq. the agent of the institution in

H. of R.]

Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum.

[APRIL 12, 1830.

Florida, (in which territory the lands had been located,) with the privilege of holding up the land five years, and and which he asked might be read at the Clerk's table. It was read accordingly; when,

If this course is persisted in, the population of the country will be checked, its settlement retarded, and the most injurious results produced. The honorable gentleman from Kentucky is mistaken in supposing that the time asked for is required. The land now selected can be sold for five dollars per acre, which will make this grant worth more than one hundred thousand dollars.

Upon the ground, then, that it is unnecessary and impolitic, that it is a violation of the condition of the grant, and injurious to my constituents and the country, I move an indefinite postponement of the bill.

with the certainty of a prolongation of five more, upon the precedent now about to be established, the territories, Mr. WHITE, of Florida, said, he regretted that an im- instead of being colonies of the United States, will be held perious sense of public duty compelled him to oppose any by Deaf and Dumb Corporations, who will sell them out measure that had the appearance of promoting any chari- as the funds may be required for the purposes of their intable or humane object. He was impressed with a belief stitutions. I humbly hope, sir, Congress is not prepared that when the House was informed of the history of this to adopt a policy so unwise, a system so destructive of all grant, and the proceedings under it, they would be in the hopes and prospects of the territories. It was my clined to think that charity had already suffered much, good fortune, once, to defeat a bill like this, by moving and that some of that feeling now invoked for the passage an amendment, that the lands granted should be sold at of this bill ought to be extended to his constituents. In public auction at once. This produced a discussion, which 1826, an application was made to Congress for a grant of resulted in the postponement of the bill. a township of land to the incorporated Asylum for teaching the Deaf and Dumb in Kentucky. He did not, upon that, or any other occasion, interpose any objection to prevent the most munificent bounty of the Government for so benevolent an object. It was not his province to inquire into the expediency or power of Congress to make grants of the public lands for any object. It was his duty, however, to guard, as far as possible, the interests of They can sell every acre within the time now limited by the people of Florida against any injury which might law, at that price; and so far from there being any danger happen to them in the profusion of the nation's bounty. of their suffering from speculators, if this extension is alEvery one acquainted with the surveys of the public lands lowed, it will enable this charitable institution to become, must know that a township is one of the legal divisions, itself, a speculator, to the injury of the people of Florida. six miles square, containing nine sections of six hundred and forty acres each. It was the intention of Congress that this land should be selected in one body, according to the surveys, as that of General Lafayette's was, and all the other grants of a similar nature. This land was not so se- Mr. KINCAID addressed the House in reply, observing lected. A powerful influence was enlisted to pervert the that they would perceive from the letter of the agent law, and induce the Secretary of the Treasury to reverse that the land had been disposed of, excepting about oneall the decisions previously made in the construction of third, which still remained on hand; and although he supsimilar laws, and to allow the selection in small bodies all posed, from the remarks of the honorable gentleman from over the territory. The late Secretary of State was in- Florida, that it was worth five dollars per acre, and he duced to use his influence with the Secretary of the Trea- hoped even more than that, yet he could not agree with sury to have the land located in small bodies, and it was him that it would at present command that sum; no such accordingly so ordered. This decision, made, as I have offers were made to the agent; but, on the contrary, the said, against all precedent, gave to the institution land highest bid made for any part of it was about three dollars four times as valuable as any one entire township in the per acre, and, for the greater portion which lay out of the country would have been. Not content with this advan-settlements, no offer whatever was made. Should the tage, an attempt was made to place these selections over gentleman's motion, therefore, succeed, the amount now the farms and houses of all the poor settlers in the country, on hand would have to be got rid of within less than one contrary to a law that secured the possession of these me- year from this time: a great sacrifice must be the inevitaritorious occupants, and in violation of the pledges of the ble result. There were no buyers to bid for it but land representatives here made, to prevent any opposition to speculators, who, being apprised of the terms of the grant, the bill. I had visited that institution, had my sympathies were now lying by, in hopes of getting a great bargain. strongly enlisted in its favor, and was desirous that the bill Mr. K. said, the argument that the House had not the should pass, if it was not injurious to my constituents. power to pass this bill, was pretty much an argument of This attempt to place the grant over their houses and farms, course in the discussions here, which he would permit on produced the embarrassments alluded to by the gentleman this occasion to pass; but, in answer to the other arguments from Kentucky. How far it will constitute a claim for advanced by the gentleman, he felt it his duty again briefly indulgence from this House, I cannot say; but, judging to explain to the House how the difficulties had arisen from my own feelings, I cannot suppose it will have much effect. I mention this to show how highly this institution, by the influence of the late Secretary of State, has already been favored.

which had operated to prevent the trustees from disposing of the land as they had hoped and expected to do, within the period at first fixed by law.

The grant, as he had before stated, had passed the I have two objections, however, to the passage of this House in April, 1826; but, at the same session, an act was bill, which I humbly conceive, with all the benevolent passed granting the right of pre-emption to "every per feelings in favor of the institution, the House will consi- son who had actually inhabited and cultivated a tract of der reasonable and well founded. This grant was ac-land lying in either of the districts established for the sale cepted, upon the express condition that it should be sold of public lands in the Territory of Florida, which tract was within five years. The United States parted with the title, not rightfully claimed by any other person, and who and the condition was for the benefit of the Territory of should not have removed from the territory." The trustFlorida. This is a question now, in which the United ces would doubtless have taken their land in one undividStates have no concern; and I doubt their power to extended township, but they had found it impossible (unless they the condition of a grant, to the injury of a third person, had taken what was worthless) to find any township which or party, by removing restrictions intended for their benefit. A bill has already passed the Senate, granting six or eight townships of land to all the large States, to be located in the territories.

If that bill should get through this House, of which there is every prospect, from the combination in its favor,

did not include the improvements of some of those settlers who were entitled to the right of pre-emption to which he had just referred. Under these circumstances, the trustees had applied to the Secretary of the Treasury for instructions and advice; (the act having declared that the land should be located "under his direction.")

That